Quiet Quitting - the new “great resignation”

It’s significance is in the fact that “quiet quitting” is a passive-aggressive act for which unmotivated lazy people are looking to portray their attitudes and behaviour as virtuous.

And as for doing the same thing over and expecting different results, what they’re at has been tried before, and it is ineffective. It doesn’t change their circumstances, it doesn’t change anyone’s circumstances, and that’s why I’m critical of the idea - because it’s not doing anything, while claiming to be doing something and looking for credit for it from other people who are as fickle and short-sighted as they are.

In effect it’s simply teaching people to be selfish, like not just looking after themselves selfish, but actually selfish, and it’s not new, I’ve heard of it since I began working over 30 years ago and have heard of it in various iterations, having gone from uniform to blue collar to white collar work (smart casual makes me uncomfortable 😒).

I’ve heard it said about volunteering too, and I’ve had to listen to people on social welfare claiming that I was foolish and they’re smart because they’re getting everything for free and I’m working my ass off… but I’ve never thought of it like that in the first place, it’s an entirely different mentality, a lazy, unmotivated and selfish mentality. That’s what actually bothers me, not the idea that it might become popular, but that anyone would think it’s any way to go through life with that attitude towards others.

And maybe you’re just cutting corners and doing a bad job.

Either hypothetical answer is as likely in that hypothetical scenario, unless you’re suggesting something negative in the idea that I might take longer to complete the same task?

I don’t see how that can’t equally be applied to you in this hypothetical scenario, or is it that you place greater value on your own input than mine… which, wouldn’t come as a shock really, would it?

Kettle black. You want them to do something for nothing for your own gain.

Trying to achieve this by insults and virtue signalling isn't really selling it. Rather the opposite.

It undermines a system built on being seen working, and working long hours, rather than measuring output.

It could mean any of those things. Martin was basically offering a hypothetical scenario where nothing could be determined only that I took longer to complete the same task, and asked what extra work had I done that I took longer? The question made no sense.

Maybe 15 years ago, I would have agreed with you, but I think myself and apparently a lot of other people have started to take a very different view.

I bust my ass in any job I've had over the years, usually at a management and senior level. I've had people working on my teams who have gone above and beyond, stayed late, worked unpaid overtime and taken on more tasks than they were paid for and in return have received nothing, or maybe a silly €50 One4All voucher every Christmas because senior management (above me) didn't see the 'point' in rewarding hard working staff.

Men and women sacrifice family and social life time to work more, in the desperate hope they may be considered for a promotion.

Corporations making millions and billions per year, while the average employee is struggling to pay their monthly utility bills even though they work harder than colleagues doing the "bare minimum."

And here's the thing, it's not a "bare minium". It's their job. They're paid to fulfill a service and they complete the service for the pre-negotiated rates and hours. Hospitality and customer service folks often dealing with the worst of people and get sweet **** all in return for it.

When it comes time for yet another company to do mass layoffs because they gambled wrong and lost money on something, it's the workers that suffer, and in my experience they don't care if you're the hardest working person there, they'll still cut you out to save money for the investors.

An employer shouldn't expect more than the bare minimum from their staff. If you want staff to do more, you need to put it in their job spec and pay them. The problem is if they wrote it down, no one would want the job at that salary. Why should "meets expectations" no longer be considered good enough?

Well if you are going to expect that kind of honesty from employees shouldn't you expect the same from employers. So when a company is hiring, at the outset state "you will be in X department who is carrying the workload of 7 people but only have 5 staff, including you. You will be expected to stay late on a regular basis in order to make up for the understaffing in this dept. You will not be rewarded extra for this".

Being open and honest works both ways.

I disagree completely with the idea that an employer shouldn’t expect more than the bare minimum from their staff! That might fly if they’re a student and it’s their first part-time job, but when it’s at the level where they’re expecting to be developing their career, then it’s not unreasonable that an employer expects more than just the bare minimum of any employee, and is entitled to ask questions when they notice an employee is disengaging or their performance is slipping.

Sure, and that way they don’t end up wasting each other’s time when the expectations are set from the outset.

The problem is when you’re not hitting those targets, because you’re only doing the bare minimum -

Quiet quitting can take various shapes and forms, from reduction in productivity, non-attendance at meetings and failure to contribute to team projects, to arriving late and leaving early. Employees’ reasons for going down this path can also vary, says Rachael Knappier, director of service at Croner. “[It] may occur when an employee feels undervalued in the workplace. They may feel their work-life balance is becoming problematic and that they are experiencing burnout. By dialling down the work effort, employees may feel as though they are deprioritising their jobs and redressing the balance,” she says.

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1795213/quiet-quitting-hr-manage-it

The rest of it is your projecting, it certainly doesn’t map to my experience.

Employers don’t expect to make anyone redundant when it suits them to do so, that’s not one of the objectives of any business. Reducing operating costs certainly, but roles are made redundant, not people.

The reactions on this thread are quite telling, there's real hostility to people not motivated to do any extra work. And I'll bet a lot of that hostility is from people who are employees themselves.

On the other hand there are people who see through the whole culture, who realise that employees who work hard will still be let go if there's a downturn.

One thing I would say, anyone working beyond what their payed for needs to have a good reason for it. Just hoping that it'll pay off at some unspecified date really isn't enough.

The mad thing for me is that any business owner knows this, and that it'd be unreasonable to expect people to work for no extra pay or no clear benefit to themselves. It really is a giant con, and as I acknowledged previously my own businesses have benefited from it, but I can't really object to people not going along with it.

Worked with a lad many years ago who couldn't get the work done and used to do up to 3 hours extra for nothing even though we would get paid overtime if it went over the 8 hour shift.

Said he wanted to save the company money, few months later the boss sacked him when he wanted to get rid of a few members of staff.

Lots of lazy bastards out there who get away with it but quite a few fools as well who don't realise they are nothing more and a number to their boss.

You're missing the point, so here's an example.

I used to be a salesperson for a phone network. Now, let's say on a monthly basis my target on new contracts was 12 new customers per month on a 2 year contract. That is the baseline for my roll, and what I was paid to achieve each month.

Now, let's say I push through and have a great month and get 20 new contracts in that month, but I still only get paid for 12 of those and the rest are just "above and beyond", well then my motivation to do earn more money for the company is now much lower, because I'm not going to benefit from it.

So what the company starts to do is pay a reasonable commission on sales above the baseline target, suddenly I have my incentive to sign up more people, the company profits and I profit.

And no, it's not a "bare minimum", its the agreement you as an employer made with an employee.

Reward them so. Bollox of do it for the team. If my bank account doesn't reflect my extra effort then good luck.

I do work extra, but flexibility is the key.

There is not one job I've been in that I've got a significant pay rise with a promotion. So I left.